If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

keithwms · Nov 16, 2009

The different cameras and formats have entirely different strengths.

Apart from the technical issues (lens speed, resolution, tonality, movements, equipment bulk, bellows focusing etc), these different cameras also affect how we see the subject... literally and figuratively. So the relationship with the subject can be very different. Some cases in point: imagine seeing a subject life-size (1:1) on ground glass as opposed to some scaled representation through a viewfinder. Or imagine seeing your subject in natural 3D with no lens effects through the viewfinder of a rangefinder, as opposed to looking through the lens of an SLR. Totally different ways of seeing.

My gripe about digital is not technical (kibbles and bits and bytes and range and all that). My principal gripe about digital is the way it's drastically narrowed all the gear options to one: the DSLR. That's just a ridiculously small subset of what used to be commonly wielded by film photographers. (And yes I do realize that there are digital backs that I can put on my MF and view cameras etc.... but... still no digital RF or TLR or folder worth my time or money. Okay, actually no LF back worth my time and money either)

sepiareverb · Nov 16, 2009

I've found MF to not be worth the trade-off of depth of field limitations to negative size. I shoot 35mm and 810, and have been shooting 35mm almost exclusively for the last four years. But I pulled out a box of 810 from the freezer today, and have the film holders on the counter in the darkroom, I'll clean them tomorrow and load them up. Something very satisfying about working with 810 that isn't all about print quality.

I've been printing my 35mm negs at 16x20", and have no problems with inferior quality. They just look different than an 810 at 1620, and the grain is something I rather like.

dynachrome · Nov 16, 2009

There are motorized medium format cameras but burning up 220 film can be expensive. 35mm equipmemt is more flexible and easier to use in low light. As film quality improved al lot of work which had been done with medium format equipment started to be done with 35mm cameras. A lot of work that was done with 4X5 cameras then started to be done with medium format cameras. Most medium format cameras do not have the movements or small f/stops of large format systems. An exception is the Fuji GX680 line. I enjoy using my medium format cameras but I use 35mm cameras more often.

FilmOnly · Nov 16, 2009

I VERY much appreciate these opinions--all of them.

For me, depth-of-field is an important aspect--not just in the objective sense, but also in the subjective sense. I like the extra DOF offered in 35mm lenses, and I suppose this is why I have remained in the 35mm realm. Prior to beginning this thread, I suppose I had only a vague perception of how important DOF is in my photography. Your comments and opinions have helped to bring this to the surface.

Sirius Glass · Nov 16, 2009

FilmOnly said:
Prior to beginning this thread, I suppose I had only a vague perception of how important DOF is in my photography. Your comments and opinions have helped to bring this to the surface.

That is why APUG is so successful. Everyone of us can learn from anyone of us.

Edit: In reference to "how many ... make large prints [above 8"x10"], I regularly print 35mm color at 24"x36" and 120 film at 30"x30".

Steve

mopar_guy · Nov 16, 2009

Why 35mm?

One word: Kodachrome

Sirius Glass · Nov 16, 2009

mopar_guy said:
One word: Kodachrome

Well, in that case, you will not have a reason to shoot 35mm any longer.

Steve

removed account4 · Nov 16, 2009

the main reason i will shoot 35mm or 1/2 frame
is because of the number of views i can get on a roll.
i have begun to shoot my lf cameras like a 35mm and it is
a PITA to reload.

Ektagraphic · Nov 16, 2009

mopar_guy said:
One word: Kodachrome

I was going to say this too....I am now going to shoot more medium format....

mopar_guy · Nov 16, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Well, in that case, you will not have a reason to shoot 35mm any longer.

Steve

As Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till its over."

Mark Fisher · Nov 16, 2009

I always found this sort of question a little strange. If you want ultrasharp images for big enlargements, bigger is certainly better. If you want to shoot gritty street shots, 35mm is certainly better. Put another way, it is hard to imagine Ansel Adams or Weston doing their best work with 35mm, but it is hard to imagine Selgado shooting an 8x10. You use the tool that gives you the look you want. The good news is that a good photographer can make good images with a wide range of tools.

ChrisC · Nov 16, 2009

I've thought this way too. To the point where I sold my 35mm kit a few months ago (EOS 30 w/ 20-35mm) to stick with 645 and 4x5.

But now I'm planning a trip to India next year, and I'm considering picking up a 35mm camera again. I took my 645 to Nepal last year, and while I was glad I had it with me for the trip, I didn't really enjoy carrying it with me all the time, and often left it behind because of this.

Small really does have a place.

Rolleiflexible · Nov 17, 2009

df cardwell said:
I have no reason to record the world I see
at 1/60 @ f/32. That is the World of The Obvious.
At 1/60 @ f/2, you are walking in the Realm of the Sacred,
and every moment is a chance to peer into Eternity.

I prefer the Languid Interstice of
one second stopped at f/4 & felt
with a Rolleiflex of course.

Halford · Nov 17, 2009

This has been a really interesting thread to read -- at least for someone currently really enjoying MF and thinking of reinvesting in both smaller & bigger formats soon.

FilmOnly: Sometimes it's great reading this kind of discussion, if largely to help focus on why you like what you like. For me, I'm enjoying MF (and am tempted by LF) partly for the opposite reason -- how easy it is to narrow down DOF -- and find 35mm tempting for the portability. 35mm of course can do plenty of wonderful stuff, and there are great fine-grained films which capture an awesome amount of detail in that space. My first camera as a child was a little Kodak 110 thing, and even that could record a fair amount.

At the moment my "light & portable" option is the DSLR, but it would be fantastic to have a film alternative.

Have fun, Hal

Leighgion · Nov 17, 2009

The idea that a bigger negative is always better is born from a refusal to account for practical reality.

I tried really hard to find a medium format rig that would be compact, portable and suitable for moment's notice action shooting. The lightest and fastest handling medium format rigs I have practically stand still next to my 35mm RFs and SLRs and my attempts to use MF cameras in photojournalistic fashion exhausted me much faster than shooting 35mm. Costs energy to hold up that extra mass. Superior resolution and fine grain is all well and good, but it's worthless if you can't actually get the shot you want on it.

My medium format cameras are great and I use them often, but much of my photographic interest revolves around moving subjects. I've had some success doing that on 120, but much, much, more on 135.

DanielStone · Nov 17, 2009

I have re-found 35mm during my current color course at school. Most of the other students in the class have only shot 35mm, and we recently had to shoot a portrait with the MF setup (Pentax 67II). Most people languished at the sight of the camera; "its too big, too heavy". thats what tripods are for IMO .

most of the shots I've ended up loving the most have come out of the spontaneity allowed by 35mm. 35mm only.

if only my RZ or Hassy H2 could do 5fps(4.5 fps whatever ) like my F100. if only. but different strokes for different folks....

-Dan

EDIT: hit save too early . oops. but the thing I love about 35mm the most is the ease of it. I shoot 220 in my MF cam's, so getting 32 frames on the 6x4.5 is almost like shooting 35mm, just a bit bigger.

35mm is easier to edit down too. I've gotten to the point where I can get my shots in under 30s and return to the darkroom to start printing. 2 1/4 is even easier due to bigger negs.

ohh.... yes, Kodachrome, for the small amount I shoot it. Kodachrome(regrettably I didn't get the chance to shoot it in 120, damn.... that would be a real treat )

Jeff Searust · Nov 17, 2009

My fingers are too big to load 35mm on developing reels. MF works fine, and sheet film is by far the easiest to handle.

Steve Smith · Nov 17, 2009

35mm also excels with long lenses. A 300mm lens would need around 600mm on 6x7cm, around 900mm on 5x4" and a massive 1800mm on 8x10" to get similar angles of view. Things start to get impractical as the format gets larger.

Steve.

craygc · Nov 17, 2009

35mm format is a nice trade off between size, lens Fov, DoF and result. I use both 6x7 and 35mm and for a lot of documentary style photography 35mm excels where MF just couldnt keep up. Other photographic genres are certainly different in requirements but within the constraints of the format, 35mm is not necessarily a bad choice.
__________________
Flickr: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/User/craygc

2F/2F · Nov 17, 2009

Because I like the pix that I (and others) get from it.

Willie Jan · Nov 17, 2009

it's true, i also sold all the 35mm stuff.
I work with 6x6 and 4x5.

But if I would go photographing a-la cartier bresson, I would buy a leica for that. I do not think it will work with 6x6.

Micky · Nov 17, 2009

a photo that i take with a 35mm camera is far superior than a photo that i don't take with a mf camera.

steven_e007 · Nov 17, 2009

I prefer medium format (and larger formats) because I do my own printing - and it is much easier and more user friendly, IMHO, to handle a nice big negative, where you can see what you are doing without squinting through a loupe and any dust or marks are a relatively smaller issue. I find 35mm more awkward and fiddly to handle.

I use 35mm when I want to send the film to a mini lab (i.e: colour) or if I need a long lens (bird photographs) or lots of depth of field.

As for lightness and conveinience, my 35mm cameras (especially with the extra lenses) are far heavier and bulkier than my medium format folders ;-)

Laurent · Nov 17, 2009

steven_e007 said:
I prefer medium format (and larger formats) because I do my own printing - and it is much easier and more user friendly, IMHO, to handle a nice big negative, where you can see what you are doing without squinting through a loupe and any dust or marks are a relatively smaller issue. I find 35mm more awkward and fiddly to handle.

I have the same feeling, even if I was surprised at how few dust issues I had with 35mm as soon as I found a way to dry my negs...

I still prefer Large Format, since the act of photographing is more deliberate (and the results are properly stunning, even for moderate enlargement), but I could not do without MF (my rolleiflex has become my "all-round" camera) or 35mm (there are times when I NEED to blow a few films at a higher rate.

df cardwell · Nov 17, 2009

Rolleiflexible said:
I prefer the Languid Interstice of
one second stopped at f/4 & felt
with a Rolleiflex of course.

There are always the Languid Intersices which must be accounted for.

Rolleis tend to exist in their own dimensions, wedged into the Liminal Thin Places of existence.

Hi Sanders. Want some Rum ?

If Medium Format and Large Format are Better, Why Do We Bother with 35mm?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency